Cattle v Evans & Anor (Rev 1)

A constructive trust requires an agreement, arrangement or understanding giving rise to a beneficial interest. Separate ownership of assets, divided sale proceeds and sole funding of a purchase may demonstrate that no such interest arose.

For an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, reasonable financial provision is assessed by reference to maintenance and all relevant statutory circumstances. A surviving cohabitant need not receive the deceased’s principal home or the bulk of the estate. Appropriate provision may instead comprise capital for a suitable replacement home, held for the beneficiaries subject to the applicant’s right to occupy it.

The claimant, the deceased’s long-term partner, sought reasonable financial provision from his intestate estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She also claimed a beneficial interest under a constructive trust in a property registered solely in the deceased’s name.

The defendants were the deceased’s sons and intestacy beneficiaries. The court had to determine whether a constructive trust existed, whether the claimant qualified as a person living in the same household as the deceased as his wife, whether intestacy made reasonable financial provision for her maintenance, and, if so, the appropriate form and amount of provision.

1. Constructive trust. The claimant failed to establish any agreement, arrangement or understanding that she had a beneficial interest in the Cross Hands property. The parties had generally kept their assets and finances separate. The Spanish property was jointly owned, but the proceeds of its sale were divided between them, the Cross Hands purchase was funded almost entirely by the deceased, and the property was conveyed into his sole name. The court therefore concluded that he was its legal and beneficial owner.
2. Eligibility under the 1975 Act. The claimant had lived in the same household as the deceased as his wife for nearly five years. She therefore fell within section 1(1)(ba) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. It was unnecessary to decide the alternative maintenance basis under section 1(1)(e).
3. Reasonable financial provision. Intestacy made no provision for the claimant. Having regard to the statutory matters, including her financial resources and needs, the beneficiaries’ position, the size of the estate, the parties’ long relationship, their contributions to the household, and the claimant’s conduct, the court held that reasonable financial provision for her maintenance had not been made. Her financial position did not justify transferring the Cross Hands property or the bulk of the estate to her. Her need was for a more modest home which would allow her to retain the income from 7 Crome Close.
4. Form of relief. The appropriate provision was capital sufficient to purchase a property costing no more than £110,000, together with the incidental purchase costs. The property was to be held on trust for the defendants, subject to the claimant’s right to live there for as long as she wished, provided that she maintained comprehensive insurance. If she could no longer live there, it could be sold and the proceeds used to acquire another suitable property on equivalent terms. Further submissions were invited on the precise form of order.

Not stated in the judgment.